It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Judges vs State Government

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:46 PM
Executive branch and legislature branch should not be allowed to tell the judiciary branch what sentences they should pass down. Our founding fathers put checks and balances in for a reason our politicians need to stop interfering with the judiciary branch for political gain.
At the state level have judges appointed either by the governor of the state for life or by a special judicial comity. If a judge gets crazy he can be removed by a judicial peer review just as he can at the federal level.

Voters should not be allowed to vote for a judge.

Why? Because judges should have to be fair and unbiased. They can’t remain unbiased with special interest groups running commercials non-stop.

Why have I brought this up? Watching a friend of mine in court for drunk driving it’s just insane. He blew a .8 second offence last one was 2 years ago. Neither time did he cause an accident. First time it was over a brake light being burnt out, second time his tag was 2 days expired.

Now he is faced with a state mandated sentencing procedure. Which is loosing his license for 2 years one thousand dollars a year to the secretary of state for 2 years, some ungodly monetary fine from the court and so on. Not to mention the AA meetings counseling rehab etc which he needs no doubt he’s an alcoholic and this process has got him clean which is great , but god at a huge cost. I can understand restricted and I think that’s what most judges would do if there weren’t state mandatory guidelines.

Now I know the argument is he could have killed someone. But I really think the black and white and no gray area is kind of what is wrong in general with America today. I think real change in our government and peoples attitudes in general has to start locally with sentencing guidelines being stripped and recognizing there is in fact a gray area. We need to give the power back to judges and not have them worry what mad will do if they go easy on someone, maybe we would see addicts getting sentenced to rehab instead of jail or huge fines.

Just a thought thanks for reading.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:40 PM

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Not to mention the AA meetings counseling rehab etc which he needs no doubt he’s an alcoholic and this process has got him clean which is great , but god at a huge cost.

I fail to see what is wrong with the judicial system here.
There are driving while intoxicated laws all over this country. They are needed because too many people feel the need to drink and drive.

Your friend is lucky no one but his wallet are hurting here.

The judicial system didn't force him to drink and then tell him to drive. He did that. So it seems the fault is his, not the system.

The judicial system may be flawed. But driving while drinking/drunk is what is insane.

I also disagree in your stance about citizens voting for judges. I don't see how appointments as less impartial than popular voting.

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:15 PM
They are not partial due to madd, and other special interest groups. I went to the court house today and asked some lawyers why such harsh laws. They even told me due to special interest and politicians wanting to look tough on drunk drivers. So basically a few drunks that kill people ruin it for the ones who really didn’t do anything. Fine whatever no gray area just black and white common trend in America these days, one of the biggest problems with it also.

But they did have some interesting insight into the driving issue. Turns out Addicts are extremely stubborn people in general. They tried the restricted license route some addicts would violate it and drive any place they want, even drunk. Then they tried suspended licenses same thing happened. What has kept them off the roads is revoking their license and if they catch them driving throw them in jail for a year. So they say turns out the addicts still drive just use a family member’s vehicle or friends! I guess having a revoked license is a bigger deal then driving on a restricted or suspended. Fine still its a few bad apples spoiling it for everyone These bad apples have caused yet another law I found today that is mandatory. If you own a car you must sell it or risk forfeiture of your vehicle or have it booted by the state for yet another fee.

I don’t understand why we lump all Drunk drivers into a potential murder category. Fact is most never hurt anyone. The ones that do go to jail anyway, so why totally bend over people who were pulled over on routine traffic stops found to be .08 which is nothing and then ruin their lives.

I did find that most mandatory drugs laws have been reversed and some good progress is being made there.

Also rumors are the blood alcohol level is going down to .06.

More to come I’m going to a AA meeting, one that allows non-alcoholics and then going to go to a anon some group that has spouses or other family member who are addicts. I might even be able to sit in on a NA meeting. I really want to find out how many of them are bad apples like a sample of 50 addicts how many of them still drive even with revoked licenses maybe it's a majority.

new topics

log in